My personal opinion is they need to jettison the evangelicals and move back to their core principals, maybe modified a bit for the new reality post wall street crash. There's a lot of people in the center that neither party is really paying attention to, if one party focused on them, I think they'd do really well.

Here was an interesting editorial about it:
Sarah Palin and the Southern Strategy (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bookman/entries/2008/10/25/sarah_palin_and_the_southern_s.html)

If this election ends as current trends indicate, the GOP is about to be banished to the political wilderness. The amount of time it is forced to stay there depends on how the party handles its exile. If most of its moderate members go down to defeat, leaving it a core of deeply conservative officeholders concentrated in the South, the party could turn even more insular in defeat, and even more strongly in the grip of its evangelical base. A regional party simmering in its own bitterness would do no one any good, and would give Democrats a dangerously free hand in Washington for a long time.
...
Sarah Palin is another matter entirely. If the election doesn’t turn around — and that “if” gets smaller with each passing day — the GOP will break at least temporarily into two separate groups, and Palin will be the symbol and in some ways the cause of that break. She remains much beloved by the party base, and in truth has improved as a campaigner. But the polling data is quite clear that she has been poison at the box office, as they say in show biz. Palin’s selection electrified the base but drove off millions of moderates and independents.

Here's a good one (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302081.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

There are many ways to lose a presidential election. John McCain is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him.

A year ago, the Arizona senator's team made a crucial strategic decision. McCain would run on his (impressive) personal biography. On policy, he'd hew mostly to conservative orthodoxy, with a few deviations -- most notably, his support for legalization for illegal immigrants. But this strategy wasn't yielding results in the general election. So in August, McCain tried a bold new gambit: He would reach out to independents and women with an exciting and unexpected vice presidential choice. ...Although I'm sort of the opinion that GBW's 8 years probably did more damage than McCain's presidency.

I agree with you, jettison the fundies! It would cost votes in the short term but in the long term it would be the best thing for the party and the country. A lot of right leaning and moderate dems are seriously turned off by social and anti-intellectual conservatism but otherwise favor small/limited government.

Klath, do you think this election might actually strengthen the power the evangelical conservatives have? They might be the only ones re-elected to the legislature. They might end up with a disproportionate amount of power in the Republican party. Outside the Bible belt it seems like Republicans are going to get trounced.

They need to jettison their "Real America is small town" and anti-intellectual thing too. Here's what one self-described "purple" woman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702406.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) says today:
The larger point, though, is that if I'm not voting for McCain -- and, after a long struggle, I've realized that I can't -- maybe it's worth explaining why, for I suspect there are other independent voters who feel the same. Particularly because it's not his campaign, disjointed though that has been, that finally repulses me: It's his rapidly deteriorating, increasingly anti-intellectual, no longer even recognizably conservative Republican Party. His problems are not technical; they do not have to do with ads, fundraising or tactics, as some have suggested. They are institutional; they have to do with his colleagues, advisers and supporters.

...

If these traits appealed to me, they probably would have appealed to other independents, too. Why, then, has McCain spent the past four months running away from them? The appointment of Palin -- inspired by his closest colleagues -- turned out not to be a "maverick" move but, rather, a concession to those Republicans who think foreign policy can be conducted using a series of cliches and those in his party who shout down the federal government while quietly raking in federal subsidies. Although McCain has one of the best records for bipartisanship in the Senate, he's let his campaign appeal to his party's extremes. Though he is a true foreign policy intellectual, his supporters cultivate ignorance and fear: Watch Sean Hannity's " Barack Obama and Friends: A History of Radicalism" on YouTube if you don't believe me. Worse, McCain has -- in a fatal effort to appeal to the least thoughtful, most partisan elements of his base -- moved away from his previous positions on torture and immigration. Maybe that's all tactics, and maybe the "real" McCain will ditch the awful ideologues after Nov. 4, if by some miracle he happens to win. But how can I know that will happen?

Here's what I do know: I would give anything to rewrite history and make McCain president in 2000. But in 2008, I don't think I can vote for him. Barack Obama is indeed the least experienced, least tested candidate in modern presidential history. But at least if he wins, I can be sure that the mobs who cry "terrorist" at the sound of Obama's name will be kept far, far away from the White House.

oooh, well said:
This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just "people of faith" but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for knowledge and learning. (http://www.slate.com/id/2203120/)

Klath, do you think this election might actually strengthen the power the evangelical conservatives have?
I think that if they do wind up with more power over the party it will result in them making the party less appealing to non-fundies which will reduce the influence of the party.

On an unrelated note, I just drove through a lot of CA, AZ, and NM -- mostly rural areas -- and I was surprised by how few bumper stickers and yard signs I saw for either candidate. Of those I did see, my favorite so far was one I saw in Nogales: "Rednecks for Obama"

As a Christian my self I agree that they need to boot the religion out of politics. Being a politician for America is all about doing what's in the best interest for America not what's the best interest for your religion. Legislating religion has never been a good idea, even when you read the Bible...most of the wars were caused by legislating religion. That's the point of religion, you are supposed to believe something in your own will, not be forced to believe it by an iron fist.

I know there's a lot of religious people who think like that Woodelfous. I wish they were more vocal about it. But moderates are quiet, shy folks (or so you'd think). I wish the evangelicals would stop seeing only two issues that make them vote: Homosexuality and abortion, and realize there's a whole lot more in the Bible than those two things. Like isn't there stuff in there about protecting the earth? Helping the poor? Why are those things viewed with so much less importance than the two hot-button issues? I'm no Bible scholar, but I know some, and I've been told homosexuality is barely even discussed in the Bible and that fortune telling was a far worse sin. Yet I don't see Christians agitating for fortune tellers to be punished.

I guess the biggest question about the Republican party going forward is, will they become more extreme or less extreme. On one hand, the Republicans being booted are more moderate, the extremists are keeping their offices, obviously because they have extremist constituents.
For example (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin), Larry Sabato, the election forecaster, predicts that seven Senate seats currently held by Republicans will go Democratic on Tuesday. According to the liberal-conservative rankings of the political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, five of the soon-to-be-gone senators are more moderate than the median Republican senator — so the rump, the G.O.P. caucus that remains, will have shifted further to the right. The same thing seems set to happen in the House.If this happens it seems like the GOP is going to sink under the waves for a looong time. But what effect will that have on the Democrats? Will D's move further right to try to reach disaffected R's, and newly minted Independents? Or will they even need to? The disaffection might be so deep that it isn't necessary.

When things improve, as they will someday, will the unhappy R's be willing to overlook the extremism and move back to the GOP or will the last 8 years leave long lasting scars that will take a few decades to forget?

Here's some Republican introspection (from a Republican)
Full Text (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/04/AR2008110403872.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
I suggest that we return to first principles. At the top of that list has to be a recommitment to limited government. After eight years of profligate spending and soaring deficits, voters can be forgiven for not knowing that limited government has long been the first article of faith for Republicans.

Of course, it's not the level of spending that gets the most attention; it's the manner in which the spending is allocated. The proliferation of earmarks is largely a product of the Gingrich-DeLay years, and it's no surprise that some of the most ardent practitioners were earmarked by the voters for retirement yesterday. Few Americans will take seriously Republican speeches on limited government if we Republicans can't wean ourselves from this insidious practice. But if we can go clean, it will offer a stark contrast to the Democrats, who, after two years in training, already have their own earmark favor factory running at full tilt. Unfortunately this guy doesn't seem to see the harm that pandering to the evangelicals has done to the party.

I suspect that Republicans will continue to blame their problems on the media and not do the introspection they need to do to find the real problems; that the majority of the voters they could be reaching don't like their party platform and the shrill religiousness, intolerance and anti-intellectual movement. Lots of moderates value higher education, don't hate gays, appreciate people keeping their religion out of government but when you tune into conservative directed media, and the campaigns, these days those moderate values are ignored or sneered at or else those people are told they're liberals. That isn't the fault of mainstream media, that's the fault of folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly and that sort of media.

That isn't the fault of mainstream media, that's the fault of folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly and that sort of media.
Yep. I just spent the last couple of days driving across the US listening to talk radio and the consensus amongst the commentators appears to be that McCain lost because he didn't appeal enough to the fundies. If the Republican party listens to these morons then they deserve they marginalization they'll no doubt suffer as a result. That said, I'd rather see them ditch the fundies, bring back the educated conservatives, and maybe pull in the Libertarians and some of the moderate dems.

I agree with David Brooks, the anti-intellectual fundies are a fatal cancer to the Republican party.

Well, I heard a R. pundit on TV last night saying that they need to abandon the fiscal message and move towards the democrats on that but keep their social conservatism.

You know what... he might be right. Look at all the social conservative democrats there are, they voted for Obama but they would vote against gay marriage in CA and perhaps abortion. There's actually a lot of conservatives that when polled are pro-big government but they're hot on the social issues.

She remains much beloved by the party base, and in truth has improved as a campaigner. But the polling data is quite clear that she has been poison at the box office, as they say in show biz. Palin’s selection electrified the base but drove off millions of moderates and independents.
I guess that the base of the GOP constitutes about 69% of the party. If they can alienate the rest of the moderates they may be up to 100% by 2012.

69% of GOP Voters Say Palin Helped McCain (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2012/69_of_gop_voters_say_palin_helped_mccain)

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped John McCain’s bid for the presidency, even as news reports surface that some McCain staffers think she was a liability.

Only 20% of GOP voters say Palin hurt the party’s ticket, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Six percent (6%) say she had no impact, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.

[More... (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2012/69_of_gop_voters_say_palin_helped_mccain)]

The Perils of 'Populist Chic' (http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122610558004810243.html)
What the rise of Sarah Palin and populism means for the conservative intellectual tradition.
By MARK LILLA

Finita la commedia. Many things ended on Tuesday evening when Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, and depending on how you voted you are either celebrating or mourning this weekend. But no matter what our political affiliations, we should all -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- be toasting the return of Governor Sarah Palin to Juneau, Alaska.

The Palin farce is already the stuff of legend. For a generation at least it is sure to keep presidential historians and late-night comedians in gainful employment, which is no small thing. But it would be a pity if laughter drowned out serious reflection about this bizarre episode. As Jane Mayer reported recently in the New Yorker ("The Insiders," Oct. 27, 2008), John McCain's choice was not a fluke, or a senior moment, or an act of desperation. It was the result of a long campaign by influential conservative intellectuals to find a young, populist leader to whom they might hitch their wagons in the future.

[More... (http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122610558004810243.html)]

How cynical can you be to be an ivy league intellectual to cultivate distrust and hatred amongst your peers by another class?The die was cast. Over the next 25 years there grew up a new generation of conservative writers who cultivated none of their elders' intellectual virtues -- indeed, who saw themselves as counter-intellectuals. Most are well-educated and many have attended Ivy League universities; in fact, one of the masterminds of the Palin nomination was once a Harvard professor. But their function within the conservative movement is no longer to educate and ennoble a populist political tendency, it is to defend that tendency against the supposedly monolithic and uniformly hostile educated classes. They mock the advice of Nobel Prize-winning economists and praise the financial acumen of plumbers and builders. They ridicule ambassadors and diplomats while promoting jingoistic journalists who have never lived abroad and speak no foreign languages. And with the rise of shock radio and television, they have found a large, popular audience that eagerly absorbs their contempt for intellectual elites. They hoped to shape that audience, but the truth is that their audience has now shaped them.It seems to me there's a lot of jealousy at the base of this.David Brooks noted correctly (if belatedly) that conservatives' "disdain for liberal intellectuals" had slipped into "disdain for the educated class as a whole," and worried that the Republican Party was alienating educated voters.
I'm finding myself agree with guys like David Brooks a lot these days. Kind of scary...

Hey... surprised to see that column was in the WSJ! I guess even they have to display a non-pro Republican view every now and then. I would have said liberal, but these days I'm hearing that sort of thing from a lot of Republicans.

The Republican party drifted too far from what got them into office and the growth of government and the deficit and the economy in a funk for 8 years has destroyed the Republican party. Why vote for a Republican when you can vote for a Democart that can be honest about their spending habits? Well, I think they aren't honest either about overspending but that seems to be the assumption that Dems can be trusted to not squander so much money.

In any case, there has to be a back to basics on controlling government spending and finding ways to reduce taxes. On the social front, there has to be a case to be made why voting for a religous canidate is necessary.

Yup. It simply does not make sense to argue for less government regulation and at the same time more government intervention on social issues.

Democrats are, of course, the "big government" party; Republicans need to decide whether they want to be the "small government" party or the "big government (fundamentalist Christian version)" party. If they choose the latter, they can expect to be further marginalized.

I don't think you could call Republicans small government. Many Republicans want big government. The biggest differences I can see between the two parties is one party wants to give government assistance to poor people, the other one wants to give it to companies and rich people. One wants to legislate what you do in the bedroom, the other wants to legislate what happens in the boardroom.

Pew Research did a break down of the different philosophies within the parties a few years ago. It was very interesting: Beyond Red VS Blue (http://people-press.org/report/242/beyond-red-vs-blue)

I know there's a lot of religious people who think like that Woodelfous. I wish they were more vocal about it. But moderates are quiet, shy folks (or so you'd think). I wish the evangelicals would stop seeing only two issues that make them vote: Homosexuality and abortion, and realize there's a whole lot more in the Bible than those two things. Like isn't there stuff in there about protecting the earth? Helping the poor? Why are those things viewed with so much less importance than the two hot-button issues? I'm no Bible scholar, but I know some, and I've been told homosexuality is barely even discussed in the Bible and that fortune telling was a far worse sin. Yet I don't see Christians agitating for fortune tellers to be punished.

Soothesayers. Its not so much the telling of fortunes but those who profess prophecy the future. My understanding of the thought behind it was that if a soothesayer was a fraud, he should be stoned for cheating people or fostering unrest, or what not...and if the soothesayer could actually tell the future, he was too dangerous to let live.

While the bible is pretty clear that men shall not lie with men, nor women with women, and that the penalty is death by stoning...there are alot of prohibitions in the bible which are no longer particularly relevant in the modern era. Religions do need to update with the times, as it were.

The biggest differences I can see between the two parties is one party wants to give government assistance to poor people, the other one wants to give it to companies and rich people. One wants to legislate what you do in the bedroom, the other wants to legislate what happens in the boardroom.

I divide politics into social issues and fincial issues. These two pure notions combine to all kinds of shads of grey.

Generally, I define the Rep party as favoring laws that reduce costs of goods and increasing supply(supply side econ). This has been done by free trade, lowering taxes and reducing regulations. Perhaps the deregulation has went too far in the stock trading arena... No, deregulation has went too far in the fincial area ( shivers to say that , haha).

I define the Dem party favoring controlling demand by wealth redistribution to the poor and other social programs like welfare and unemployment. This mentality can end up canablizing industries for the same reasons that GM is failing... companies can not increase earnings and tend to not repair and replace equipment. This can be seen in rent control that was enacted during the great depression.

Both parties try to increase the United States fincial status but one favoring supply and other favoring demand.

The social divide between the two parties occurs for the same reason that a trial requires two lawyers to represent the interests of both sides. The Republican party chose to reprsent the status quoe. For as long as liberal agenda is being pushed on the federal level, social issues will come up. I just think the progressives have stuck to acting on the state level rather than the federal level where they have been defeated... so far.

The question being asked by Reps is how the party went wrong... I think that there was a number issues that allowed Obama to win. First, he gives very good speeches eventhough I think he ran a Seinfeld campaign. Second, we are involved in Iraq and involved in Afganistan and we have onerous baggage checks at the airport without a terrorist attack... along with wire tapping occuring and other privacies previously enjoyed... Third, the US economy has been in a funk from the begining of Bush's administration. Fourth, the budget deficit has ballooned over the last 8 years. Fifth, McCain was strong on forgein policy and not on economic issues and he had a bunch of morons runnig his campagain.

Yeah, those damn negroes and gays force the hand of the Republican party to fight back against the imposition of tolerance and equality.

They mock the advice of Nobel Prize-winning economists and praise the financial acumen of plumbers and builders.

While not a direct quote, but just an emboldened quote.

How much production does a so called Nobel Prize winning economist produce?

How many employees do they have?
How many sinks have they sunk.
How many houses have they built?
How many roads have they paved?
How many lightpoles have they raised?

Dude, don't ever, ever discount real productive people, people who make things, people who actually do things,,,,over those who are only theoreticians and merely write about the work that other people do.

People who build things, who do things, are much much smarter, and a thousand times more important, than people who just write theories about building or doing things.

People who build things, who do things, are much much smarter, and a thousand times more important, than people who just write theories about building or doing things.
Sure, but only when you attach an unnatural amount of importance to clearing blocked toilets. If you consider having a healthy economy to be important, the opinion of the average plumber is worth about the same as the blockages they clear.

I'm a bit surprised at your opinion as I thought you were a Libertarian. Don't Libertarians believe that market forces determine the value of things? Given that the average Nobel Prize-winner makes significantly more than the average plumber, isn't it fair to say that Nobel Prize-winner's are more important?

People who run profitable business, making payroll, paying sales and payroll taxes, selling products and services have a very good understanding of how the economy works.

If you have your Nobel Prize winners who have done that as well as write theories, I would buy that they have something important to say.

Would you buy Chemistry theories from someone who never experimented in a Chemistry lab? Would you buy Medical or Surgical theories from someone who never actually practiced medicine or operated? Would you buy a Physicist's theory if they have never experimented or had to run Physics experiments?

I certainly would not.

And expect that if someone is expecting some form of recognition for Economics, that they at least had the experience of running a profitable competitive business.

Not that I buy into your idea of valuing people but I can think of lots of ways this particular economist helps people. He's a professor so he teaches the young who go on to have various careers. He is an author and helps advance the understanding, to those who set policies, about how trade between countries works.

Economists don't just work with financial things, they try to figure out how lots of things work. You should read Freakonomics. Very entertaining book about areas of study economists have undertaken.
People who run profitable business, making payroll, paying sales and payroll taxes, selling products and services have a very good understanding of how the economy works.
I ran a profitable business for a lot of years and I still don't understand foreign trade policy.

Soothesayers. Its not so much the telling of fortunes but those who profess prophecy the future. My understanding of the thought behind it was that if a soothesayer was a fraud, he should be stoned for cheating people or fostering unrest, or what not...and if the soothesayer could actually tell the future, he was too dangerous to let live.

While the bible is pretty clear that men shall not lie with men, nor women with women, and that the penalty is death by stoning...there are alot of prohibitions in the bible which are no longer particularly relevant in the modern era. Religions do need to update with the times, as it were.
Yeah, I think that's what my friend was telling me.

I think Christians are probably the best customers of soothesayers these days. And there's very little stoning going on.

People who build things, who do things, are much much smarter, and a thousand times more important, than people who just write theories about building or doing things.So the pilot of the Enola Gay was a thousand times smarter than Albert Einstein. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

oooh, well said:
The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for knowledge and learning. (http://www.slate.com/id/2203120/)Christopher Hitchens is fun to listen to; I saw a TV interview with him on Palin. Then again, well-spoken, rational atheists usually are. God is Not Great is going on my reading list.

So the pilot of the Enola Gay was a thousand times smarter than Albert Einstein. Gotcha. :rolleyes:
Is that what I wrote.

Let me go back up and re-read it.

Nope. Wasn't what I wrote.

I was speaking of economists. So-called scientists who have no way of experimenting their theories. Running a profitable business would be the closest thing to the 'experiment' part of the scientific method. Most of whom have never had a real job outside of academia.

BTW, I have the hardbound God Is Not Great. Good reading. Listening to him is better, of course.
I also have it in pdf if you would like, it is 1.5megs, and email-able.
Smart guy. Still would not want him running anything, though. Unless it was a new cabinet of debunking and eradicating modern day mythology and cults.

Is that what I wrote.

Let me go back up and re-read it.

Nope. Wasn't what I wrote.Of course it was. You made a general statement about theorists:Dude, don't ever, ever discount real productive people, people who make things, people who actually do things,,,,over those who are only theoreticians and merely write about the work that other people do.

People who build things, who do things, are much much smarter, and a thousand times more important, than people who just write theories about building or doing things.That statement was wrong.

Of course, if you limit your statement to theorists who only discuss their view on small-scale, practical matters, you'd certainly be right.

If I need medical help, I'd much rather have a nurse with 10 years experience insert my IV, over an M.D. Ph.D. who sits in a lab all day. But when it comes to finding a cure for cancer, I'll bet on the M.D. Ph.D. any day, and he doesn't need to work as a nurse or learn how to insert IVs to do his job effectively.

In the case of economists, I wouldn't listen to their theories about how I should run my business. But I would entertain their input when it comes to the big picture, because that's something I don't have practical experience with on a day to day basis, and hardly no one does.

And you attempted to make your poorly and flawed analogy what I said.

I dismiss your analogy. I wrote what I wrote about what I wrote.

Not about what you want it to be 'like'.

Your analogy is dismissed.

In the case of economists, I wouldn't listen to their theories about how I should run my business. But I would entertain their input when it comes to the big picture, because that's something I don't have practical experience with on a day to day basis, and hardly no one does.

I listen to conference calls for various bussiness. I listen to these inorder to get an idea on whether or not to buy their stock. In listening to these guys, I know that most of these CEOs are not economists and they are operators. They know how to source material and keep minimal inventory and make a sale. The best CEOs keep an ear open to when the economy is going to slow down and stops hiring/buying inventory.

The GOP is down right now just as the Dems where down a few years back. The big difference is that the GOP lost its fundamentals and had a president that is out of touch. Bush sank the party. Most elections where moderate republicans ran they lost. The hatred for Bush and the drumm beat of change sank anyone who was connected to him.

The GOP needs to:

1. Get back to its base of conservative financial policy
2. Family values (leaving out abortion and sexuality)
3. Freedom for people to control their lives
4 Small government

If they do this they will make inroads again, but it will take 8-12 years before they regain congress. Then again it only took Bush 8 years to sink the party.

I would also add that most polls show the country to hold center right values. The GOP will need to target the middle of the road folks who swing base on their emotions.

If they do this they will make inroads again, but it will take 8-12 years before they regain congress. Then again it only took Bush 8 years to sink the party.

It only took Clinton 2 years to take a Democratic majority in the House to a full blown revolution in 1994.

The House turns over every 2 years. That is all it takes.

The GOP needs to:

1. Get back to its base of conservative financial policyIf there's one thing it seems that neither party wants, it's fiscal conservatism. Both parties want to spend more money than they have, and the taxpayers agree with them.

Would you want your taxes raised significantly so we can balance the budget and pay off the enormous national debt?2. Family values (leaving out abortion and sexuality)"Family values" is just a Christian euphemism for bigotry, sexual repression, and female oppression, so with your exceptions, your #2 is meaningless.3. Freedom for people to control their livesPeople don't want freedom. Freedom is slavery. People want control and security, and the Republican party especially runs on a platform of fear, making people want even less freedom.4 Small governmentSee #1. People want big government, not small government.

Your hypothetical candidate would never win the Republican nomination, let alone the White House.

I would also add that most polls show the country to hold center right values. The GOP will need to target the middle of the road folks who swing base on their emotions.I think most normal (non-Christian zealot) people are finally seeing the light, and shifting their views towards the global, first world center (what we call the left or liberal view).

Also, as a nation we're a lot more liberal than the elections make it appear, since the liberals vote far less than the conservatives do. This year's Democratic revolution is due, in large part, to Obama's efforts to get those lazy people off their asses and vote.

It only took Clinton 2 years to take a Democratic majority in the House to a full blown revolution in 1994.And Obama has made it very clear that he's not going to repeat Clinton's mistake. Notice how centrist (American centrist, i.e., conservative) he's becoming, with a mixed cabinet, no more tax hikes for the rich.

Funny how all the liberals are now complaining taht Obama is more a moderate then they thought.

In two years we will see a report card on how well he does. I agree he was very effective in getting out the vote in this election, but once Bush is gone the GOP will have a chance to get their messaging in full gear.

but once Bush is gone the GOP will have a chance to get their messaging in full gear.
You mean they won't have a powerful example of how they have failed to deliver on their message.

Funny how all the liberals are now complaining taht Obama is more a moderate then they thought.

In two years we will see a report card on how well he does. I agree he was very effective in getting out the vote in this election, but once Bush is gone the GOP will have a chance to get their messaging in full gear.


Obama did an AWESOME job beating Bush in this election.

Fantastic campaign.